Main page | Bible teachings | Feedback


Russia and Nato (Author of the article is a Finnish citizen)

Several military experts and specialists have said that Russia would win NATO in the war if the war would break out between Russia and NATO. According to statistics, Russia has more nuclear warheads than NATO has. Some Finnish people are looking for protection from NATO, but NATO can't give actual security guarantees for Finland, because NATO is on the losing end concerning the amount of nuclear warheads and NATO is anyway on the side who would lose the war. NATO has not the muscles to win Russia.

The Finnish Specialists

Aleksanteri Institute's Director of Research and professor Markku Kangaspuro says that Russia react allergic for the expansion of NATO. Kangaspuro says that there is no reason for NATO membership. He said that it is not good create tensions to borders of Russia and Finland, which would arise if Finland would join in NATO. Kangaspuro says that the best for Finland is to preserve the non-aligned position.

Helsinki University's International professor of Policy Heikki Patomäki says that Russia sees current expansion plans as the sphere of interest competition where Finland should not join, because it should worsen the situation.

Risto Volanen has been Secretary of State for the Former Prime Minister of Finland (Matti Vanhanen). Risto Volanen is also the Doctor of Social Science and he has said that Finland's Security Policy and its baseline decisive is to look for the solution about the conflict of the superpowers, so that it is interest of Finland and not to go as a party to the conflict of superpowers. Volanen believes that the non-aligned position is the solution for Finland.

The Foreign Specialists

When we study the military actions of the USA in the history and nowadays, so it exposes for us that in the real situations USA is trying to minimize the loss. This means that the USA doesn't send wide troops to the battlefield. The White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest has said that the USA had learned the lesson during the last decades that US troops can't operate as the substitute of local troops. Earnest's comment applied the battle against ISIS.

What comes to NATO and its possible military strikes, so the USA will react to them in the same way than during the last decades, which means that the USA is not ready for big losses in the battle field. Russia has shown throughout its history that it is more willing to suffer greater loss in the battle than the USA.

If Finland will come the member of NATO and if the war breaks out between Russia and NATO, so Finland would be immediately on the war, because of the common border with Russia. The USA wouldn't want to suffer great losses and therefore it would send only a few land troops to this military conflict and Finland must defend its border by own troops, and Finland would suffer the greatest loss, because Russia would destroy all the military bases of NATO in the Finland's soil. Germany, France or England has no chances against Russia. If Finland would join in NATO and thinks that it gets safety guarantees against Russia, so it is Finland's biggest mistake. In reality Finland will not get such aid and safety guarantees than it believes, but will be as the border state of Russia a big sufferer, if the war breaks out between Russia and NATO.

Chris Donnelly served four NATO Secretary Generals as Special Adviser for Central and Eastern Europe. Author of Red Banner – The Soviet Military System in Peace and War, he now directs the UK’s Institute for Statecraft, and before advising the highest level of NATO was director of the Soviet Studies Centre at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. The Breitbar Media interviewed Chris 23 April 2014 and asked that could Russia win this war (against NATO). Chris Donnelly answered as followed:

Vladimir Putin is a long-term strategic thinker whose goal is to rebuild Russia’s greatness, and he has a natural advantage. It is relatively easy to defeat an adversary who does not have a game plan, even if they are stronger than you. You may have a PhD and an IQ of 160, but if you’ve never played chess before and have never heard of the Fool’s Mate stratagem, a child can defeat you with it in two moves. Also, you hear the constant refrain, such that “Russia would never do X because it has too much to lose.” This betrays a complete misunderstanding of the difference between the strategic culture of Russia and the culture of our politicians. The winner may quite simply be the side that is more prepared to take losses. That is definitely not us. (Editor’s Note: The estimates for WWII are that the USSR lost 14% of its population – 22 million lives. The figures for the US and UK by comparison are 0.3% of the population and 419,000 dead, and 0.95% of the population and 450,000 killed.)

Chris Donnelly also said: We do not understand Putin’s way of war. We don’t even have the right vocabulary to describe it. To our citizens, war is “Saving Private Ryan”. That’s not Putin’s way of war. Russia was a military superpower, but it was also masterful at the indirect, non-kinetic way of war. See the book Unrestricted Warfare authored by two colonels in the Chinese army. This is a superb guide to how to defeat a nation that is militarily much more powerful than you. It lists all the various ways you can undermine a strong Western nation without firing a shot: the use of economics, the NGO sector, sympathetic members of your ethnic diaspora, or space and the cyber domain. Russia has honed this mode of war since the fall of the Soviet Union and used it in Georgia and now Ukraine and its neighboring nations.

NATO-lands as the USA and England don't sacrifice their soldiers in the war than Russia does. British war Special Adviser thinks that probable winner is the one who can stand more losses and from the history we know that Russia can stand more losses than the USA and England. Russia has more nuclear warheads than NATO has and Russia can take more losses than NATO and so Russia has twofold advantage. It seems very obvious that NATO couldn't get out of the war as winner if the war would break out between Russia and NATO.

Loren B. Thompson is Chief Operating Officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute and Chief Executive Officer of Source Associates, a for-profit consultancy. Prior to holding his present positions, he was Deputy Director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University and taught graduate-level courses in strategy, technology and media affairs at Georgetown. He has also taught at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. Mr. Thompson holds doctoral and masters degrees in government from Georgetown University and a bachelor of science degree in political science from Northeastern University.

Loren Thompson has said that Russia has a number of advantages that can ensure the country’s military forces will succeed in a hypothetical armed conflict. Thompson says that Russia would gain huge geographical advantages in potential conflict. Thompson notice that Russia has a historical tendency to conduct warfare on land rather than at sea. Thompson also said that additionally, taking into account the quantity of armed forces deployed in the west of the country, Russia can, in a very short-term, assemble the required numbers of servicemen, Thompson underscored. Thompson says that NATO’s air support may, in fact, appear ineffective, as Russia has obtained mighty anti-aircraft defense systems. Finally Thompson said: "As the Russian military has become increasingly professionalized, it has introduced an array of advanced conventional weapons while America and its allies have under-invested in new technology."

When we take into account that the decisive battles happens on the land, so Russia has an advantage in weapon technology and when Russia can take more losses than NATO, so Russia has the great advantage.

Legendary and retired US Army Commander Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor has said that Russia would "Annihilate" US in head-to-head battle. In early September 2015 he circulated a PowerPoint presentation showing that in a head-to-head confrontation pitting the equivalent of a U.S. armored division against a likely Russian adversary, the U.S. division would be defeated. Macgregor has said that defeated isn’t the right word. The right word is annihilated. The 21-slide presentation features four battle scenarios, all of them against a Russian adversary in the Baltics — what one currently serving war planner on the Joint Chiefs staff calls “the most likely warfighting scenario we will face outside of the Middle East.”

Russia has an advantage if the decisive battles happen in the land as usually happens. Russia has very powerful air force defense systems and NATO is underdog also in this matter. Russia is a such kind of the country that if NATO would attack against Russia the battle would happen to the land and Russia has huge geographical advantages also in this matter. When we take into account that Russia has more nuclear warheads than NATO, so the winner would be Russia if the war would break out between Russia and NATO.

US army's commanding general in Europe Ben Hodges has said that NATO wouldn't protect Baltic countries against Russia. Hodges has said that Russia could take over Baltic countries more quickly as NATO could defend them. According to Hodges Russia's tanks could invade to Estonia and other Baltic countries, even in 36 ours if they would want to take possession Baltic countries and NATO couldn't do anything about it. Hodges has said that exercise Anaconda-16 in Poland has exposed several weaknesses. For example, heavy military equipments can not be transferred fast enough from the West to the Eastern Europe. Hodges has also said that he is concerned about NATO's allies communication technology.


Several other US military experts have said that US and NATO transfer much slower military equipments than Russia. Military experts say that this gives to Russia the head start and remarkable advantage if the war would break out between NATO and Russia. Hodges' confession exposes that NATO cannot defend its allies in the nearness of Russia's borders. This means that NATO couldn't defend Finland against Russia if Finland would be NATO's member. Finland has about 1300 kilometer long common border with Russia. It would be obvious and clear that Russia would arm powerfully nearness of Finland's border if Finland would join in NATO. All speeches about the safety guarantees of NATO can be parallelized to H.C. Andersen's short tale of the Emperor who has no clothes, even he thought that he has new clothes.

The real wisdom does not lead Finland to NATO, but non-aligned position, because as non-aligned country Finland wouldn't be the threat to Russia. Russia would get benefit if Finland would be neutral and non-aligned buffer zone country at the border of Russia. Russia has not such kind interests towards Finland than what the Crimea means to Russia. Possible Finland's joining of NATO would placed Finland as the military threat to Russia, because the Russians would have 1300 kilometer long common border with NATO. NATO's continuous expansion is greater threat to the world peace than Russia's actions, because NATO has pointed out militarily against Russia.

If Finland would join to NATO, so it would be the same matter than getting safety from the novice bodyguard when against would be well armed and trained experienced bodyguard. Everybody can understand that what would be the final result. Finland shouldn't join in NATO or stand up for and espouse NATO, but stay in the neutral and non-aligned country, because by this way Finland would suffer lesser losses if Finland would be NATO's member if the war would break out. I don't take the part of Russia or NATO, because I support neutrality, for it is the best solution to Finland. In military alliance Finland would be always a possible threat and an enemy to anyone, but as the non-aligned country Finland would have peaceful intentions with everyone.



Petri Paavola 8.7. 2016






web maker

eXTReMe Tracker